Search

Background: Postoperative hypotension is common after major non-cardiac surgery, due predominantly to vasodilation. Administration of infused vasopressors postoperatively may often be considered a surrogate indicator of vasodilation. The incidence of postoperative vasopressors has never been described for non-cardiac surgery, nor have outcomes associated with their use. This paper presents a protocol for a prospective international cohort study to address these gaps in knowledge. The primary objectives are to estimate the proportion of patients who receive postoperative vasopressor infusions (PVI) and to document the variation in this proportion between hospitals and internationally. Furthermore, we will identify factors in variation of care (patient, condition, surgery, and intraoperative management) associated with receipt of PVI and investigate how PVI use is associated with patient outcomes, including organ dysfunction, length of hospital stay, and 30-day in-hospital mortality. Method: This will be a prospective, international, multicentre cohort study that includes all adult (≥ 18 years) non-cardiac surgical patients in participating centres. Patients undergoing cardiac, obstetric, or day-case surgery will be excluded. We will recruit two cohorts of patients: cohort A will include all eligible patients admitted to participating hospitals for seven consecutive days. Cohort B will include 30 sequential patients per hospital, with the single additional inclusion criterion of postoperative vasopressor usage. We expect to collect data on approximately 40,000 patients for cohort A and 12,800 patients for cohort B. Discussion: While in cardiac surgery, clinical trials have informed the choice of vasopressors used to treat postoperative vasoplegia; there remains equipoise over the best approach in non-cardiac surgery. Our study will represent the first large-scale assessment of the use of vasopressors after non-cardiac surgery. These data will inform future studies, including trials of different vasopressors and potential management options to improve outcomes and reduce resource use after surgery. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03805230, 15 January 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Major surgery accounts for a substantial proportion of health service activity, due not only to the primary procedure, but the longer-term health implications of poor short-term outcome. Data from small studies or from outside the UK indicate that rates of complications and failure to rescue vary between hospitals, as does compliance with best practice processes. Within the UK, there is currently no system for monitoring postoperative complications (other than short-term mortality) in major non-cardiac surgery. Further, there is variation between national audit programmes, in the emphasis placed on quality assurance versus quality improvement, and therefore the principles of measurement and reporting which are used to design such programmes. Methods and analysis: The PQIP patient study is a multi-centre prospective cohort study which recruits patients undergoing major surgery. Patient provide informed consent and contribute baseline and outcome data from their perspective using a suite of patient-reported outcome tools. Research and clinical staff complete data on patient risk factors and outcomes in-hospital, including two measures of complications. Longer-term outcome data are collected through patient feedback and linkage to national administrative datasets (mortality and readmissions). As well as providing a uniquely granular dataset for research, PQIP provides feedback to participating sites on their compliance with evidence-based processes and their patients' outcomes, with the aim of supporting local quality improvement. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval has been granted by the Health Research Authority in the UK. Dissemination of interim findings (non-inferential) will form a part of the improvement methodology and will be provided to participating centres at regular intervals, including near-real time feedback of key process measures. Inferential analyses will be published in the peer-reviewed literature, supported by a comprehensive multi-modal communications strategy including to patients, policy makers and academic audiences as well as clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Days alive and out of hospital (DAOH) is a composite, patient-centred outcome measure describing a patient's postoperative recovery, encompassing hospitalisation and mortality. DAOH is the number of days not in hospital over a defined postoperative period; patients who die have DAOH of zero. The Standardising Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) group recommended DAOH as a perioperative outcome. However, DAOH has never been validated in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Here, we validate DAOH after emergency laparotomy and establish the optimal duration of observation.Methods: Prospectively collected data of patients having emergency laparotomy in England (December 1, 2013-November 30, 2017) were linked to national hospital admission and mortality records for the year after surgery. We evaluated construct validity by assessing DAOH variation with known perioperative risk factors and predictive validity for 1 yr mortality using a multivariate Bayesian mixed-effects logistic regression. The optimal postoperative DAOH period (30 or 90 days) was judged on distributional and pragmatic properties.Results: We analysed 78 921 records. The median 30-day DAOH (DAOH30) was 16 (inter-quartile range [IQR], 0-22) days and the median DAOH90 was 75 (46-82) days. DAOH was shorter in the presence of known perioperative risk factors. For patients surviving the first 30 postoperative days, shorter DAOH30 was associated with higher 1-yr mortality (odds ratio=0.94; 95% credible interval, 0.94-0.94).Conclusion: DAOH is a valid, patient-centred outcome after emergency laparotomy. We recommend its use in clinical trials, quality assurance, and quality improvement, measured at 30 days as mortality heavily skews DAOH measured at 90 days and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Preoperative risk prediction is important for guiding clinical decision-making and resource allocation. Clinicians frequently rely solely on their own clinical judgement for risk prediction rather than objective measures. We aimed to compare the accuracy of freely available objective surgical risk tools with subjective clinical assessment in predicting 30-day mortality.Methods and Findings: We conducted a prospective observational study in 274 hospitals in the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, and New Zealand. For 1 week in 2017, prospective risk, surgical, and outcome data were collected on all adults aged 18 years and over undergoing surgery requiring at least a 1-night stay in hospital. Recruitment bias was avoided through an ethical waiver to patient consent; a mixture of rural, urban, district, and university hospitals participated. We compared subjective assessment with 3 previously published, open-access objective risk tools for predicting 30-day mortality: the Portsmouth-Physiology and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality (P-POSSUM), Surgical Risk Scale (SRS), and Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT). We then developed a logistic regression model combining subjective assessment and the best objective tool and compared its performance to each constituent method alone. We included 22,631 patients in the study: 52.8% were female, median age was 62 years (interquartile range [IQR] 46 to 73 years), median postoperative length of stay was 3 days (IQR 1 to 6), and inpatient 30-day mortality was 1.4%. Clinicians used subjective assessment alone in 88.7% of cases. All methods overpredicted risk, but visual inspection of plots showed the SORT to have the best calibration. The SORT demonstrated the best discrimination of the objective tools (SORT Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristic curve [AUROC] = 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88-0.92; P-POSSUM = 0.89, 95% CI 0.88-0.91; SRS = 0.85, 95% CI 0.82-0.87). Subjective assessment demonstrated good discrimination (AUROC = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.86-0.91) that was not different from the SORT (p = 0.309). Combining subjective assessment and the SORT improved discrimination (bootstrap optimism-corrected AUROC = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.90-0.94) and demonstrated continuous Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.06-0.20, p < 0.001) compared with subjective assessment alone. Decision-curve analysis (DCA) confirmed the superiority of the SORT over other previously published models, and the SORT-clinical judgement model again performed best overall. Our study is limited by the low mortality rate, by the lack of blinding in the 'subjective' risk assessments, and because we only compared the performance of clinical risk scores as opposed to other prediction tools such as exercise testing or frailty assessment.Conclusions: In this study, we observed that the combination of subjective assessment with a parsimonious risk model improved perioperative risk estimation. This may be of value in helping clinicians allocate finite resources such as critical care and to support patient involvement in clinical decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent data suggest that beta blockers are associated with increased perioperative risk in hypertensive patients. We investigated whether beta blockers were associated with an increased risk in elderly patients with raised preoperative arterial blood pressure.Methods: We conducted a propensity-score-matched cohort study of primary care data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (2004-13), including 84 633 patients aged 65 yr or over. Conditional logistic regression models, including factors that were significantly associated with the outcome, were constructed for 30-day mortality after elective noncardiac surgery. The effects of beta blockers (primary outcome), renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers, thiazides, loop diuretics, and statins were investigated at systolic and diastolic arterial pressure thresholds.Results: Beta blockers were associated with increased odds of postoperative 30-day mortality in patients with systolic hypertension (defined as systolic BP >140 mm Hg; adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-3.51). After excluding patients for whom prior data suggest benefit from perioperative beta blockade (patients with prior myocardial infarction or heart failure), rather than adjusting for them, the point estimate shifted slightly (aOR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.09-3.89). Compared with no use, statins (aOR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.17-0.75) and thiazides (aOR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.10-0.78) were associated with lower mortality in patients with systolic hypertension.Conclusions: These data suggest that the safety of perioperative beta blockers may be influenced by preoperative blood pressure thresholds. A randomised controlled trial of beta-blocker withdrawal, in select populations, is required to identify a causal relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]